LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

ultimaThule wrote:

J4MM wrote:My ex lies when he opens his mouth.

  Is he related to the McCanns?

J4MM wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:

J4MM wrote:My ex lies when he opens his mouth.

  Is he related to the McCanns?

I'd say he was more likely to be related to the McCan'ts.

ultimaThule wrote:

aquila wrote:@ ultimaThule

Please forgive this little digression but you mentioned today that the judge in the current libel trial is the same judge that banned GA's book. It isn't.

In which case I must apologise for implying or stating that the current judge is one and the same who saw fit to ban the sale of Dr Amaral book and order that all copies should be given to the plaintiffs.  

Do you happen to have the name of the judge who made that order, aquila?

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Off topic - so please excuse me! - but there was a lot of talk in the 1970s that pyramids had healing qualities and if you put fruit inside one, it wouldn't go bad.
 
My ex who was as mad as the March hare proceeded to build a giant pyramid in the back garden! 
 
Thankfully both he and it are long gone.

Tony Bennett wrote:

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Off topic - so please excuse me! - but there was a lot of talk in the 1970s that pyramids had healing qualities and if you put fruit inside one, it wouldn't go bad.
 
My ex who was as mad as the March hare proceeded to build a giant pyramid in the back garden! 

I have a confession to make - indeed NFWTD I wonder if we read the same book, was it 'Mysterious Britain'? or something like that. I would have read it early 1970s.

Anyway, there was a chapter that said that if you preserved a razor blade at a certain angle - 30 degrees or so IIRC - it would always remain sharp. Due to the pranic forces, the ley lines of energy, something like that.  It might have been about pyramids as well.

So convincing was that book (I believed a lot of strange things in those days, and no doubt some will say I still do) that I gave it a try.

It didn't work.

I often wondered if I'd got the angle slightly wrong - or may be it should have faced east instead of north

lj wrote:

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Off topic - so please excuse me! - but there was a lot of talk in the 1970s that pyramids had healing qualities and if you put fruit inside one, it wouldn't go bad.
 
My ex who was as mad as the March hare proceeded to build a giant pyramid in the back garden! 
 
Thankfully both he and it are long gone.

It's NFWTD, but I had to laugh so hard!!

ultimaThule wrote:

diatribe wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:


As I understand it, should their application to appear as witnesses to their plaint be granted, any questions put to them by the defence must be directed to the judge who will determine whether they are pertinent to the matter in hand before putting them to the McCanns who are unlikely, therefore, to undergo any rigorous cross-examination of the type they may expect should they take the stand in a criminal court of law.

Do you mean giving evidence on the same sort of basis as the Levenson enquiry? As previously stated, I know little about libel law and by default the rules of evidence etc.

I however do tend to remember Jonathan Aitken having to withdraw his libel suit after intense cross examination by the late George Carmen QC and subsequently being sentenced to 18 months imp. for attempting to pervert the course of justice. Surely a judge cannot restrict a particular counsel to what questions can or cannot be put to a witness, with the proviso that they are relevant to the case, or maybe portugese law works differently.

Jonathan Aitken! That was a good one!    As was the case of a certain Jeffrey Archer who, unaccountably, continues to wear ermine despite having been a guest of Her Maj at one of her public establishments for the detention of offenders.

It appears that in this particuar libel trial, should the McCanns appear as witnesses all questions from the defence will be put to the judge who will decide whether to put all/any of them to the plaintiffs, and vice versa should Dr Amaral be allowed to take the stand.  

There was some talk of the McCanns applying to give their testimony in writing, presumably in their absence, but from what little I have gleaned of Portuguese libel law it would appear this won't be allowed unless there are particulary pressing extenuating circumstances.  However, any decision rests with the judge and what she says goes - until such time as it's appealed.

From reading the transcripts to date, it appears the judge is intent on restricting questions to the matter before her and, as she is the arbiter of what either side is allowed to ask, it's unlikely any questions of the type we'd like answered will slip through her net, albeit I'm happy to report that the McCanns' witnesses have scored more than a few own goals and the defence continue to get the ball past the plaintiff's goalkeeper.    Poor Izzy.  I wonder if she had any idea what she was letting herself in for

PeterMac wrote:on the McCanngate facebook
David Steel
Day 10 over in Lisbon. Next date Jan 7th. No news whether McCann or Amaral will take stand. Thanks to @JillyCL

ultimaThule wrote:

diatribe wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:


As I understand it, should their application to appear as witnesses to their plaint be granted, any questions put to them by the defence must be directed to the judge who will determine whether they are pertinent to the matter in hand before putting them to the McCanns who are unlikely, therefore, to undergo any rigorous cross-examination of the type they may expect should they take the stand in a criminal court of law.

Do you mean giving evidence on the same sort of basis as the Levenson enquiry? As previously stated, I know little about libel law and by default the rules of evidence etc.

I however do tend to remember Jonathan Aitken having to withdraw his libel suit after intense cross examination by the late George Carmen QC and subsequently being sentenced to 18 months imp. for attempting to pervert the course of justice. Surely a judge cannot restrict a particular counsel to what questions can or cannot be put to a witness, with the proviso that they are relevant to the case, or maybe portugese law works differently.

Jonathan Aitken! That was a good one!    As was the case of a certain Jeffrey Archer who, unaccountably, continues to wear ermine despite having been a guest of Her Maj at one of her public establishments for the detention of offenders.

It appears that in this particuar libel trial, should the McCanns appear as witnesses all questions from the defence will be put to the judge who will decide whether to put all/any of them to the plaintiffs, and vice versa should Dr Amaral be allowed to take the stand.  

There was some talk of the McCanns applying to give their testimony in writing, presumably in their absence, but from what little I have gleaned of Portuguese libel law it would appear this won't be allowed unless there are particulary pressing extenuating circumstances.  However, any decision rests with the judge and what she says goes - until such time as it's appealed.

From reading the transcripts to date, it appears the judge is intent on restricting questions to the matter before her and, as she is the arbiter of what either side is allowed to ask, it's unlikely any questions of the type we'd like answered will slip through her net, albeit I'm happy to report that the McCanns' witnesses have scored more than a few own goals and the defence continue to get the ball past the plaintiff's goalkeeper.    Poor Izzy.  I wonder if she had any idea what she was letting herself in for

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:

PeterMac wrote:on the McCanngate facebook
David Steel
Day 10 over in Lisbon. Next date Jan 7th. No news whether McCann or Amaral will take stand. Thanks to @JillyCL

There wasn't much to report Jozi.

Portia wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:

diatribe wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:


As I understand it, should their application to appear as witnesses to their plaint be granted, any questions put to them by the defence must be directed to the judge who will determine whether they are pertinent to the matter in hand before putting them to the McCanns who are unlikely, therefore, to undergo any rigorous cross-examination of the type they may expect should they take the stand in a criminal court of law.

Do you mean giving evidence on the same sort of basis as the Levenson enquiry? As previously stated, I know little about libel law and by default the rules of evidence etc.

I however do tend to remember Jonathan Aitken having to withdraw his libel suit after intense cross examination by the late George Carmen QC and subsequently being sentenced to 18 months imp. for attempting to pervert the course of justice. Surely a judge cannot restrict a particular counsel to what questions can or cannot be put to a witness, with the proviso that they are relevant to the case, or maybe portugese law works differently.

Jonathan Aitken! That was a good one!    As was the case of a certain Jeffrey Archer who, unaccountably, continues to wear ermine despite having been a guest of Her Maj at one of her public establishments for the detention of offenders.

It appears that in this particuar libel trial, should the McCanns appear as witnesses all questions from the defence will be put to the judge who will decide whether to put all/any of them to the plaintiffs, and vice versa should Dr Amaral be allowed to take the stand.  

There was some talk of the McCanns applying to give their testimony in writing, presumably in their absence, but from what little I have gleaned of Portuguese libel law it would appear this won't be allowed unless there are particulary pressing extenuating circumstances.  However, any decision rests with the judge and what she says goes - until such time as it's appealed.

From reading the transcripts to date, it appears the judge is intent on restricting questions to the matter before her and, as she is the arbiter of what either side is allowed to ask, it's unlikely any questions of the type we'd like answered will slip through her net, albeit I'm happy to report that the McCanns' witnesses have scored more than a few own goals and the defence continue to get the ball past the plaintiff's goalkeeper.    Poor Izzy.  I wonder if she had any idea what she was letting herself in for

'Course she did: free publicity and $$$$

Good morning!

Tony Bennett wrote:
Anyway, there was a chapter that said that if you preserved a razor blade at a certain angle - 30 degrees or so IIRC - it would always remain sharp. Due to the pranic forces, the ley lines of energy, something like that.  It might have been about pyramids as well.
So convincing was that book (I believed a lot of strange things in those days, and no doubt some will say I still do) that I gave it a try.
It didn't work.

canada12 wrote:One could be forgiven for thinking a certain amount of stalling and delaying was taking place with this trial, perhaps waiting for further "developments" in the overall case. On the other hand, apparently this stopping and starting over a period of time is quite common with trials of this sort in Portugal.

I await January.